December 27, 2006

Greatest Hits 2003

Billmon at Whiskey Bar recently posted a retrospect of his prescient posts from 2003. It's great stuff that everyone should bookmark as an example of how lefty bloggers got it right from the start.

Billmon's posting inspired me to dig up some of what I wrote at the time. What follows is from an email to a personal Yahoo! email group that I sent on March 17, 2003. The group was not political in any way, but as the war loomed, a few of us got into it with a lone war-supporter on the list. Part of his response to my email was this:

Over these past few weeks, I've essentially been called a stupid, idiotic, crack-smoking knucklehead deserving to be punched out. All this, because I'm apparently swallowing all the lies spit out by Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld.

In the face of such personal attacks, it's been some consolation to me that if I'm stupid, gullible, or a liar, than so must be those frequent defenders of my positions, such as Fox News, the WSJ editorial page, talk radio and a few hundred WarBloggers.

Well, there's one thing that we agree on. Ultimately, he excoriates me for name-calling. He may be an asshole for calling for a completely unjustified and potentially disastrous war, but, hey, he was being an adult about it.

I do get a couple of things wrong. At one point, I cite 500,000 to 1,000,000 killed by Hussein, when upper estimates put that at around 350,000. I also claim that the U.S. sold Hussein chemical weapons. That's not strictly true. The weapons were sold by other countries — the U.S. just made sure to prevent any trade embargoes that would prevent the sales and helped cover up Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

Without further ado, the email (names have been changed):

---

Total Jackass wrote:

I appreciate that Winston has risked Carpal Tunnel to expand upon his ideas, which I had not previously been able to derive.

Maybe I've just been immersed in that kind of stuff too long. I thought they were obvious points. I guess it's good that I know what I need to make clear in the future.

Concerns present before 9/11 and still true today:

There you go using that "true" word again. If something is true — in the sense of "true" that merits and armed invasion — you should be able to find some evidence supporting it.

• Saddam continues to hide and stockpile chemical, biological, and conventional weapons.

Status: Lie

This "information" is only available from known liars. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the most authoritative possible source:

• Saddam continues his quest for nuclear weapons.

Status: Lie

Again, brought to you by the People Who Lie.

• Saddam continues his quest for nuclear weapons.

Status: Lie

• Saddam continues to direct his country's resources -- significant because of the oil revenues -- towards the procurement of these weapons.

(see above)

• Saddam has no interest in allowing inspectors to do the only thing that inspectors are equipped to do -- that being verifying that a country is disarming.

(see above)

• Saddam runs a police state whose cornerstone for compliance is torture.

Status: True

The same is true of: Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Israeli Occupied Territories. I care about police states that use torture, and because I care I'm not going to allow the issue to be cynically co-opted by the Bush Petrocracy.

If Saddam's Iraq is a "Police State," then what are we?

• The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Iraq's prisons are virtually empty.


• In 1970, the combination of crime and political executions made it the most "deadly" year in Iraq's history. The murder rate — again, including political executions — was still lower than the murder rate in the US today.

Describe what constitutes a "police state." It should make for a nice introduction to the USA PATRIOT act.

For the last time (hopefully): If I believed that our intervention in Iraq would make things better (even accidentally), I would support it. It didn't last time, and I haven't seen a credible argument that it will this time. There's no democratic regime ready to take over. The closest thing is KDP-controlled Kurdish areas and there's already so much ugliness brewing there that I've lost all hope. If the Turks don't extend their reign of US-approved murder and torture into the area, then the Kurds will create their own. A few weeks ago, Kurds attacked a group of Assyrians in Kirkuk. Their offense? Building a church. Oh yeah, things are lookin' up for Iraq. Send in the Marines!

Concerns amplified since 9/11:

If your level of concern for any of these issues changed at all on 9/11, then it just shows that you weren't paying attention. The 1½ years since that date have not been conducive to a passive acquisition of actual understanding.

See above, again. "Saddam continues his quest for nuclear weapons," is something George Bush and Friends say on CNN. They have cited two general source: IAEA officials, who have publically reiterated that Bush's claims are the exact opposite of theirs and that they are based on forged, vaporous, or otherwise manufactured "evidence." This has been pointed out to you over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

Just tell me, Jackass, because I need closure on this: are you really, really stupid, or just basically dishonest? Or is there a new "Post-9/11" rationale that makes the tireless repetition of discreditted assertions acceptable?

• Weapons of such destruction in the hands of tyrants who support terrorist tactics generate such a threat that the cost of inaction is greater threat than that of action.

Well, I figured that we should wait until 2004 and remove Bush from office peacefully, but you do raise a good point.

• Bush is a tyrant.
• He has supported terrorist tactics.
• His regime does posses nuclear weapons.
• Bush has threatened to use them, even without the provocation of a nuclear threat.
• In 1945, the US struck two civilian targets with nuclear weapons, in admitted act of terrorism (The US was at war, but chose to hit non-military targets, placing it in material breach of binding international resolutions, and it did so to deliberately cause terror amongst non-combatants &Mdash; something that obviously calls for a pre-emptive strike, like, say, a bombing raid on Pearl Harbor. Oh, it's all so clear to me now...)

Yeah, that seems pretty dire. Oh wait, we were talking about Iraq. Sometimes I get confused. I agree with this statement. We should definitely address threats. Let's check on that:
Perhaps you might find Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity more credible. These are ex-CIA guys who opposed the invasion. That's right, some of the same people who've overthrown legitimate democracies and installed brutal dictators for over 50 years oppose this war. These are not peaceniks or bleeding-hearts. These are spooks who know where the bodies are buried. Here's their statement:

http://www.counterpunch.org/vips02082003.html

• Saddam will only throw bones at teams of disarmament inspectors, even with the imminent threat of hundreds of thousands of troops poised to take him out.

Oh, well, Saddam throws bones at everybody, Jackass. He's got such an abundant supply of them, thanks to the 500,000 - 1,000,000 deaths inflicted on the citizens of Iraq (who, last time I checked, were not evil tyrants).

But you're right, it certainly is hard to believe that he's not complying with the inspections process when he's got Mechanized Death breathing staring him in the face. I mean, I found it hard to believe that the Iraqis weren't complying when with the inspections when the inspections teams said that the Iraqis were complying, but now that you mention this detail — yeah, only an idiot would believe that the Iraqis are hindering the inspections process.

So while the Bush Administration includes but downplays the oil-supply-stability issue, Winston makes this issue his central -- his only -- premise, insisting that the other concerns are spun out for p.r. purposes.

Yes. That is a completely true statement. Hurrah.

Many of [the historical] details [of previous oil-driven policy] may be true, and if so they do call into question the ethics of previous administrations. But making a case for guilt by association of G.W.Bush will not prove that his actions now are all about oil.

Dismissing my assertions as "guilt by association" is a new height of ignorance/duplicty for you, Jackass. It's just plain guilt. I don't have to associate these people with the lying, backstabbing, traiterous bastards who got us into this mess in 1991. They're the exact same people. Only the guy playing George Bush has changed. That's it. Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld — they're all back. It's like The Gulf War Reunion Special. All we need is a musical guest.

Instead, one only has to answer these two questions:

Why am I so sure that "one" has to do more than provide better answers than Jackass? He's like a creationist. If he has an answer, he declares victory, even if that answer is provably false.

1. If an administration has a single-minded focus on oil supply stabalization, then would they believe that military tactics were and are the most sure-fire way of obtaining this objective?
2. Do the other seven reasons for action I've listed above really matter to Bush, and to America?

I've tried to answer the first question by pointing out how, for Bush 41, all the money and resources and risks of oil wells being set ablaze doesn't seem to line up with Bush's alleged accomplishment of getting a single, large oil well transferred over to Kuwait.

It was a good try, too, Jackass, but a failed attempt.

Money and resources? Dick Cheney's Halliburton made a fortune rebuilding Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil production. If anything, the money and resources needed to fix the oil wells were incentive.

Risks? Heavily mitigated. Oil reserves, I pointed out. Also, consider the fact that Saudi Arabia can produce a sufficient supply on its own, but it's a risk. Long term strategy: diversify supplies. Short term strategy: Troops in Saudi Arabia. The official reason for those troops being there was to deter Saddam Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia, but there isn't one shred of evidence that he ever intended to. Instead, the evidence suggests that threat was invented for the purpose of getting the American and Saudi people to approve a US military presence in that country.

"Bush's alleged accomplishment of getting a single, large oil well tranferred over to Kuwait."

OK, Jackass, we speak English here, not Newspeak. First, it wasn't an alleged accomplishment, is was an actual accomplishment — unless you have evidence that this transfer didn't occur. "Single, large oil well" sounds pretty trivial, I admit, but an accurate description of the Rumaila asset is "the 2nd largest oil field in the world." It's like calling the Hope Diamond, "a piece of jewelry." Third, is wasn't the only accomplishment; Saddam Hussein and Iraq, the most powerful country on the Arabian peninsula that wasn't on a US leash, lost its autonomy. How convenient.

Do the other seven reasons for action I've listed above really matter to Bush, and to America?

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that the "seven reasons" matter to president Bush. I mean, they obviously matter in some way, because he's spent his entire presidency spouting a litany of duplicitous misrepresentations and blatant fabrications trying to get people to believe these "seven reasons." I think the well-documented campaign of deceit and propaganda makes it blindingly obvious that Bush doesn't "care" about these reasons in the sense of "he thinks they are genuine concerns."

As far as the American people go, yes, I believe they are genuinely concerned. That's why it angers me to see them lied to. If the American people have cause for concern, the cause should be addressed, and the concern remedied. If the concern is based on a lie, the remedy is exposing the lie. A widespread or sincere belief in a lie does not make it a truth.

Many Americans are concerned about gay people being school teachers because they believe the gay teachers will "recruit" children into "the homosexual lifestyle." Should we A) educate these well-meaning folks that people enter the "homosexual lifestyle" because they are sexually attracted to people of their own gender or B) persecute homosexuals by barring them from the teaching profession? If you picked B, then we should invade Iraq!

Finally, the opinion of the American people no longer matters. If you think it does, I have some unpleasant facts to introduce you do. Now, I've introduced you to a lot of facts already, and you've been very rude to them — snubbing them, and making fun of their hairstyles, and the like — and it's hurt their feelings. However, these are some particularly unpleasant facts, so I really don't care as much.

Similarly, Bush 43 is risking his entire Presidency on this crisis.

As opposed to risking it on:

• Not meeting any of his campaign promises on education
• Not meeting any of his promises on social security
• Not having a viable economic strategy
• Pushing through a tax cut for the rich in the middle of a weak economy.

I think the only other choice he has, besides Iraq, is risking his entire Presidency on a country music career and I don't think his singing voice is that good.

Including spending much of the past 5 months trying to get the rest of the U.N. Security Council to live up to the unanimously voted Resolution 1441.

Yeah! How many times do you have to lie to these people before they'll go along with you? Sheesh! What do they think we've been doing? Do they think we've just been massing troops on Iraq's border for an invasion we planned all along, while we fished for a plausible excuse that will get the UN to greenlight our attack?

He's waited and waited, giving Saddam opportunity to wire up all those 'production-stabalizing' wells, like he did the last time around.

I don't have my Newspeak dictionary handy. Does "waited" mean "lied"? And as far as Saddam blowing up oil wells: even if that's true, I'm sure Halliburton would be overjoyed to rebuild everything. In fact, the best place for a lot of Bush's cabinet to be in a couple years might be out of office and back in their oil companies where they can really get all the goodies they shook loose from the oil tree during these four years. And that's not all:
Cheney, Rumsfeld, as well as several wealthy Saudis connected to Al Qaeda are involved in Carlylse. I'd tell you to check it out, but they took down their web site when it started getting a lot of hits after 9/11. (I guess they figured that whole "web" fad was over.)

I've also tried to present, over all my previous emails, why these other seven reasons are so important for all free nations to act upon.

Here's a helpful tip: include supporting facts. You've done a fine job explaining why we should be worried about a country that would give WMDs to terrorists, but you haven't bothered to demonstrate that Iraq is likely to be one of those countries. Everything you write starts with an implicity "Assume that everything Bush says is true." That's a tough request. I've read a lot of articles in the last month and I honestly can't think of a single case where Bush hasn't lied.

Not one. I'm serious. If you can provide an example from the last year where Bush has made a significant statement regarding his personal beliefs and intentions, that is provably true, in its entirety, I'd like to know about it.

Ironically, I can cite you examples where Saddam Hussein was branded a liar, when he was telling the truth. For example, the reason the weapons inspections process broke down in 1998 was that Iraq, after 4 years of patiently waiting for the UN to act on their complaints, finally put its foot down and demanded an end to the US using the inspection mission as a cover for unauthorized covert activity. Of course, Saddam was called a liar and we made vigorous denials that any spying was being done under the cover of the inspections process.

But Saddam Hussein wasn't lying. We were spying, in violation of the agreement. Think about it. We're supposed to buy a lot of the hype because of what a big fat liar Saddam Hussein is, and he has a better record of honesty than George W. Bush. Amazing!

And now it seems we're on the eve of an invasion. I cannot at this time elaborate more on answering these two questions, and I doubt this newsgroup wants me to.

If by "elaborate" you mean "repeat more Bush administration fabrications," then no, we don't want you to. We can all get Fox News for ourselves.

I'm curious to know what events would have to transpire for Winston to admit that his judgment has been wrong.

Fair enough.

What if Iraqi citizens really do publicly express their appreciation for liberation?

Do you mean before or after CNN moves their crew to the next hotspot? In early 2002, we sure heard all kinds of success stories that proved that Bush did the Right Thing and that opponents of his Afghanistan strategy were wrong. I never changed my opinion. I looked pretty stupid in the glow of those early news reports. Of course, if you look at Afghanistan now, it's pretty much exactly what I predicted. Nobody's talking about it though, so I don't get the "I told you so" opportunities I so richly deserve.

I'm sure the Arabs cheered the conquering British soldiers in 1918. Read up on 1920.

Or if Saddam uses on our soldiers the chemical or biological weapons he has so often claimed he does not have?

What would that prove?

I never said that Saddam Hussein had no CBW, just that his stockpile wasn't a threat to us or his neighbors.

Here's a question for you, Jackass: if the US were invaded by an enemy army — in violation of international law — and the army was overrunning us by commiting blatent violations of the Geneva Convention, would it be acceptable to use our NBC weaponry to defend ourselves? I'm just curious, seeing as how you seem to have such a passion for bestowing Iraq with the same rights and freedoms America has. I assume that means the right to defend its borders against unprovoked and unauthorized attack.

We aren't attacking "Saddam Hussein." "Saddam Hussein" is not going to be firing any bullets and "Saddam Hussein" is not going to be launching any artillery, CBW or otherwise. There are 22 million other people in Iraq. Those are the people who will be killed by our forces. You're correct that Saddam Hussein has taken away most of their rights. Why are we the Good Guys when we take away what few they have left with no promise that they'll get any of them back?

Or if many more details about Iraq's nuclear weapons program come out?

If they're anything like the details that have been coming out steadily for the last 10 years, I think I'll be fine with it. I don't know what you think they're going to find, but I guess it doesn't matter, as you've shown a willingness to believe just about anything.

Or Iraq is caught harboring scores of known terrorists?

That's pretty vague. America harbors known terrorists. After WWII, more Nazi's ended up on the CIA payroll than on trial at Nuremburg. More to the point, Iraq is harboring known terrorist groups that operate in Turkey (PKK), Iran (MKO), and probably others. We have known SCIRI, IRA, and PLO members in the US, not to mention all the ex-Nazi's brought in by the Republicans over the years.

If Iraq is actively supporting Al Qaeda, I'd find that interesting.

I'm not saying that all these scenarios will come to pass. I'm just publicly wondering exactly how many things have to happen that fly in the face of his current world-view for Winston to eventually come to terms with his misjudgment of the Bush Administration's motives.

In 1991, when I told people that the Gulf War was really about oil, people said I was nuts, and that it was about liberating Kuwait. I can't believe anyone still clings to that illusion. Even the Reaganite Hawks weren't buying it at the time:
IF Iraq ends up with:

• A stable, independant, elected government,
• National control of its oil
• Return of territory "granted" to Kuwait
• Adequate national defense (no NBC weapons, though)

...I'll feel foolish. Frankly, I'd rather feel foolish than vindicated; it would be a small price to pay. On the other hand, if the hawks are responsible for hundreds of thousand more sick American veterans, the further degradation of the Iraqi people, years of regional conflict, or an increase in anti-American terrorism, they will have reason to feel deeply ashamed.

But if they had a capacity for shame, we'd live in a different world.

I, for one, agree to radically re-examine my own world view should a significant amount of the following occur: Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil reserves get moved into posession of U.S.-run energy companies.

This is already the case.

No further evidence of hidden Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs surfaces.

You might want that to read "No further credible evidence". I know that credibility isn't a requirement for you yet, but I'm urging you to join us on the "reality" bandwagon. There's plenty of room, seeing as how so few American's are on board.

Scientists freed from Saddam's threats of torture do not give grizzly details of Saddam's Modus Operandi, up through and including his threats to them about cooperating with the recent "inspections process."

What has that got to do with anything? Why don't you add "Saddam turns out not to have a mustache." Saddam Hussein committed his worst atrocities under the watchful gaze of the Reagan Administration, which had normalized relations in 1984. The Reagan Administration sold him the chemicals to make his nerve gas and gave him intelligence data so he'd know where to deploy it. Why is it suddenly a burning issue? We had our opportunities to take the moral high ground and we passed on all of them. This is the same group of people that was responsible before, Alan. Not "Republicans" but the exact same individuals.

The U.S. and its allies do not devote major effort to building a peaceful representative government in Iraq.

Well, Jackass, of course they have to build the peaceful representative government in Iraq before they can run it. Don't worry, I'm sure all the oil companies will have full representation!

No officially approved harboring of terrorists within Iraq's borders are uncovered.

I doubt Henry Kissinger will set foot there.

And finally, if the Iraqi people, who have genuine reason to be suspicious of America's intentions, don't show a similar amount of the same appreciation that has been shown for our recent efforts to spread freedom in the former Communist Bloc, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and in Afghanistan.

I have no doubt, that a similar amount of appreciation for American efforts is forthcoming.

Winston has written, somewhat cryptically, in an earlier posting:

"A lot of people like Fascist rule. It makes a lot of stuff simpler.

"Like, usually, you don't have to remember when the Jewish holidays are anymore."

Regarding the first sentence, I'm of the optimistic bend. And I think that even with decades of living under tyranny, people yearn to be free.

How free? Jean Kirkpatrick coined a distinction between "totalitarian" and "authoritarian" and the only actual difference is that totalitarian regimes are evil and poor, and authoritarian regimes are prosperous and not too evil to ally with. Iraq became a decent place to live for the first time in its history in the first 10 years of Ba'ath Party rule. It wasn't a free place by any stretch of the imagination. There were plenty of human rights abuses, but things were easing up as the economy improved. While the Shah of Iran was squandering his nation's wealth, Saddam Hussein was building roads and hospitals and schools. When Saddam Hussein because President in 1979, he was relatively popular. There were all sorts of reasons why his popularity would wane over the years, but we've eclipsed most of them.

The Shi'a Muslims in the south were really pissed off when his expelled Ayatollah Khomeini in 1977, and had another Ayatollah put to death in 1980. After years of brutal war with their Shi'a brothers in Iran, and then the betrayal of the rebellion by the Americans in 1991, the Shi'ite Iraqis are widely convinced that, warts and all, Saddam Hussien isn't such a bad deal. He has certainly done better for them than we ever have.

I know you think we will do better for them. Even if we really, really wanted to, they might not give us the chance.

I'm not sure where Winston is going with the second sentence

People support authoritarian figures to make them feel safe. The tent is usually not a big one and some group always gets shafted — and the Jews have had more than their share of turns as shaftee. Still, no one seems to mind as long as it's not them and "The trains run on time."

Saddam, who fancies himself as the reincarnation of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, surrendered Gulf War I on Purim 12 years ago. Tonight, on Purim, he gets perhaps his final opportunity to spare many of his people from the consequences of his actions.

The actions that have devestated Iraq were ours, not his.

I pray he takes it.

He doesn't have any options, Alan. He didn't last time, he doesn't this time. The policy is, and has been since 1991, "Regime Change." The weapons crap is just window dressing. Starting soon, hundreds of thousands more innocent, non-combatant Iraqs will be blown apart by US ordinance with cool-sounding names.

We'll all watch on TV.

And as the piles of smouldering bodies light up our video displays, millions of ignorant, deluded, self-important, smug assholes will shake their heads and go, "Why did Saddam let this happen?"

If you're going to pray for something, I suggest you pray it's not as bad in Hell as they say it is.

Posted by Winston Smith at 07:45 PM | Comments (0)

December 12, 2006

Never Again

Before Christopher Hitchens lost his fucking mind, he was a vocal and insightful critic of the right. In the midsts of a deluge of Reagan hagiographies following St. Ronnie's death, Hitchens wrote this refreshing retrospective of Reagan's actual career.

It's pretty ironic, really, in light of Hitchens' incoherent, yet loyal, support of the Iraq war.

Posted by Winston Smith at 12:03 PM | Comments (0)

May 22, 2006

Quote of the Day

In light of the racist trash that's been wailing and nashing their teeth over my posts, I thought this appropriate:

No prejudice is ever debated that isn't already dying.
Bishop John Shelby Spong

Update: I don't know if I should feed the troll, but Siggy has returned with this insightful response to Bishop Spong's quote (from the comments):

That is why there is not a single example of a political ideology or government, supported by the left, can be remotely connsidered a success.

I guess that depends on who you ask. If you ask me, I'd say Dr. King's civil rights movement was a success. I'd say Susan Anthony's womens' rights movement was a success. I think Thomas Jefferson wrote a pretty decent Constitution.

I imagine that if I asked Siggy, or someone in his Klub, they'd consider these things "failures."

Governments? How about Sweden, Norway and Germany? Those are all decidedly socialist. The Netherlands? Not a bastion of right-wing ideology, is it? Do people who say shit like this even know that the term "left-wing" or "liberal" mean? I realize that "both sides" have distorted meanings in an ongoing war of words, but, to quote Rush Limbaugh, "words have meaning."

Is Bishop Spong supposed to be a conservative or right-wing? I have bad news for Siggy if he thinks that the case.

Posted by Winston Smith at 11:47 AM | Comments (4)

The Spies Have It

I realize that I'm supposed to spend the rest of my life defending myself from the onslaught of bigots and Islamophobes that have decided to take umbrage at me calling the beloved Contessa a Nazi.

Nevermind that I didn't actually call her a Nazi, I said she sounded like one and I could imagine her putting on a Gestapo uniform (I'm sure she'd look quite dashing) and the remark was satirical. I know, "Is that the kind of twisted crap that Winston the Ape thinks is funny?" Why, yes, it is. Hey, it's a free country. Kinda.

On that note, I thought I'd share a Flash animation put together by the ACLU. It's also pretty funny. Of course, the wingnuts will object to the depiction of Cheney and Bush (Cheney has more hair than that!) and probably to the use of a Mulder-esque character (Mulder and Scully were conservatives!). Enjoy.

Posted by Winston Smith at 11:24 AM | Comments (3)

May 19, 2006

16% of Freepers Would Rather Vote for Marxists that Republicans

Really? Well, it looks that way.

Free Republic always has an opinion poll and records the votes with a distinction between members and non-members. The member-only vote is a better gauge of how the True Believers™ are leaning. In the case of a recent poll it would appear that a significant number are leaning far enough away from the Republicans to "let the Marxists win."

What?! You read that right. One thing that Free Republic tries to do with its polls is to make a statement; Freepers generally have a herd mentality, and seeing what the "popular" opinion is tends to shift the herd. This time, I'd have to say that it fell flat. Perhaps they tried too hard. This was the question:

A time for choosing: It appears that a significant number of our members are so disgusted with the GOP's failure to secure our borders against illegal aliens that they are willing to risk all by voting them out of office, even if it means Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, et al, are allowed to take charge. Is this the best course of action or should we be working harder than ever to hold the line and actually try to make a difference by getting more constitutionally-minded conservatives elected? Are you willing to give it all up or are you more determined than ever to keep the Marxists out of power?

Gee, put that way, what choice does a loyal Freeper really have? Marxists or conservatives? Pushing the poll further were the two options for answers:

Work harder to get conservatives elected.

Turn it over to the Rats.

Oh come on. There's only one choice there, right? Well, apparently not. Around 500 of the roughly 3000 members who voted — that's one out of six, or 16% — picked "Turn it over to the Rats." Given the way the question was phrased, that's 16% of the hard-core Freeper base that would just as soon let Hillary Clinton run the country than trust the neo-cons. That's pretty huge.

Amongst non-member voters — some like me, many probably unregistered conservative lurkers — "the Rats" scored nearly 30%, for a combined voting o 23.4% for "the Rats."

Go 'Rats!

Posted by Winston Smith at 09:32 AM | Comments (0)

May 15, 2006

American the Fearful

Today's column by Bob Herbert (TimesSelect required) is blunt and to the point.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, all bets were off. John Kennedy once said, "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." But George W. Bush, employing an outrageous propaganda campaign ("Shock and awe," "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), started an utterly pointless war in Iraq that he still doesn't know how to win or how to end.

If you listen to the Bush version of reality, the president is all powerful. In that version, we are fighting a war against terrorism, which is a war that will never end. And as long as we are at war (forever), there is no limit to the war-fighting powers the president can claim as commander in chief.

So we've kidnapped people and sent them off to be tortured in the extraordinary rendition program; and we've incarcerated people at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere without trial or even the right to know the charges against them; and we're allowing the C.I.A. to operate super-secret prisons where God-knows-what-all is going on; and we're listening in on the phone calls and reading the e-mail of innocent Americans without warrants; and on and on and on.

The Bushies will tell you that it is dangerous and even against the law to inquire into these nefarious activities. We just have to trust the king.

Well, I give you fair warning. This is a road map to totalitarianism. Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included an excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights, the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.

There are not enough pretty words in all the world to cover up the damage that George W. Bush has done to his country. If the United States could look at itself in a mirror, it would be both alarmed and ashamed at what it saw.

We've crossed the line between Republic and Tyranny. Will we be able to step back?

Posted by Steven at 05:34 PM | Comments (0)

April 20, 2006

On the Cover of the Rolling Stone

In 1972, the band Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show released a song about every rocker's dream to appear on the cover of the 5-year-old Rolling Stone Magazine. Their catchy anthem was a hit. This earned it a place the "classic rock" canon. It also earned the group an appearance on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine; the headline read, "What's Their Names Make the Cover."

This month's cover subject is unlikely to consider it a thrill, or — as the song suggests — "buy five copies for my mother."

In this issue, historian Sean Wilenz lays out that case that George W. Bush is the worst president in history.

One of my favorite parts:

In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton — a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

Great work, Sean.

Update:
This articles mention of Free Republic a couple of days ago elicited the Freeper Quote of the Day:

I have no love for Bush but he atleast beats Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and plenty of others that I don't know too much about because they are old.

Posted by Winston Smith at 12:31 PM | Comments (0)

April 04, 2006

Hi! My Name is "The Perp"

Read.

Posted by Winston Smith at 10:35 AM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2005

It's World AIDS Day

A reminder that AIDS is still raging in many parts of the world, lest we forget that amongst the artificial emergencies we have here in the U.S. of A. Thanks to Comments From Left Field and Google for the reminders.

Also thanks to the Bush Administration for not declaring a "War on AIDS." This fight is too important for them to completely screw up.

Posted by Winston Smith at 01:09 PM | Comments (0)

November 22, 2005

World Embarassment Tour

No wonder Preznit Chimpy is afraid of an exit strategy in Iraq: he can't even exit a fucking press conference. Check out this footage from the BBC.

Posted by Winston Smith at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)

June 08, 2005

Open Government, Open Source

OK, before I get into this, let me just say that drunk driving is a crime that people shouldn't commit. Furthermore, if they are convicted of this crime, they should face the consequences.

Unless, obviously, they run for President, in which case "youthful indescretions" should be forgiven. Also, 30 years old should be considered an acceptable age at which to indiscretions can be considered youthful.

That said, I still think it's important to prove the guilt of an accused drunk driver. I also think that the responsibility to prove this guilt falls on the prosecutor. Finally I really feel strongly that the prosecution case must be conclusive enough to eliminate any doubts — within reason — concerning the guilt of the accused, or we should assume that they are not guilty.

I don't think I am being too radical in stating these opinions, seeing as how this is how our legal system is supposed to work.

Well, surprise, surprise! Once again, the basic foundations of American liberty are proving controversial in the so-called "Ignorance Belt" States. You might have also heard these referred to as "Red" states due to the number of citizens in those States who, "ain't red a newspaper since Rush came on the talking box".

The Founders of this country, particularly Thomas Jefferson, felt that it was much worse to have a system that sends innocent people to prison, than one that occasionally allows guilty people to go free. Americans, by and large, support this ideal of American liberty, except, of course, when it applies to people that are, like, obviously guilty.

Consider this hypothetical scenario:

You're pulled over for impatiently rolling through a stop sign. Approaching your car, the cop smells alcohol. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that this hypothetical situation takes place in Louisiana, so the cop smells alcohol because he's holding a drink. Suspecting that you might also be drinking, because you, too, are in Louisiana, the officer asks you to step out of your car for a sobriety test.

After you flawlessly recite the alphabet, the cop confers with his partner and announces that he's "pretty sure" that Q is a letter that is only used in "towel-head" words. After predicting that "yer gonna go to Gitmo for this," the cop then proceeds to collect incriminating evidence by asking you to blow into a little digital breath-alcohol detector.

Thanks to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, you don't have to submit to this invasion of your personal integrity — unless a judge has issued a warrant permitting it. Unfortunately, the alternative is that you will be arrested and jailed while the police obtain a warrant. This is a real hassle, and during your incarceration, you run that risk that you may accidentally beat yourself to death with a nightstick, especially if you're black.

As it is, you swore never to drink again years ago, and unlike President Bush, actually adhere to that promise. Anticipating complete vindication, you sacrifice your Constitutional rights and breath into the device. After all, if you don't you'll, may lose $15.75, a Moon Pie and your claims to have "never committed a sex act with a mentally retarded law enforcement official," in the course of bribing your way out of lockup.

The digital readout reports a blood alcohol level of 0.50, which, according to a Post-It taped to the back of the Breathalyzer, means your BAC is many times higher than the point where you should "Let someone else drive the squad car." In fact, a blood alcohol level of 0.50, means that either you are dead, or Keith Richards is your "life coach."

It also might mean that the device isn't working properly, possibly because the police officers rinse it out after each use with a splash of Crown Royal.

After a grueling 7-month detention in Guantanamo Bay, you are returned to Louisiana to stand trial for "failure to pay bribe while driving around all liquored up." The prosecution's case hinges on the blood alcohol test. Additional charges, accusing you of being black or Jewish were dismissed due to the fact that you are white and Episcopalian — a denomination the court refers to as "The Fag Church".

In an effort to discredit the BAC measurement, you demand that the State of Louisiana prove that the measuring device produces accurate results. Specifically, you insist that the prosecution explain how the Breathalyzer works.

An expert witness is called to testify, but this backfires when she admits that "Intelligent Design" doesn't really concern itself with Breathalyzers and that God "probably isn't directly involved in their function." The prosecution does provide a mechanical schematic.

The only information revealed by this schematics is that there is some kind of sensor (labeled "fake sensor"), some kind of configuration switch (labeled "what you want to see"), an some kind of embedded computer system which drives the digital display.

You argue that a legitimate description of the mechanism requires disclosure of source code for the software running on the embedded microprocessor. The prosecution then claims that it can't provide any further detail because the Breathalyzer's manufacturer, Preset Outcome Systems — a leading manufacturer of touchscreen vote-fixing machines — refuses to release this source code, citing Trade Secret protection.

Are you screwed? Well, yes, you're at the mercy of the Louisiana justice system! Now, if this weren't a hypothetical case in Louisiana, but a real case in Seminole County, Florida, you'd be in much better shape.

According to an article in the June, 5^th Tampa Tribune:

Hundreds of cases involving breath-alcohol tests have been thrown out by Seminole County judges in the past five months because the test's manufacturer will not disclose how the machines work.

All four of Seminole County's criminal judges have been using a standard that if a DUI defendant asks for a key piece of information about how the machine works - its software source code, for instance - and the state cannot provide it, the breath test is rejected, the Orlando Sentinel reported Wednesday.

Not all county court in Florida agree:

Judges in other counties have said the opposite: The state cannot turn over something it does not possess, and the manufacturer should not have to turn over trade secrets.

Well, that settles it! I'm going to Florida!

I see it as nothng less than my civic duty to the people of some Florida counties to sell their Sheriffs my amazing new hand-held Guiltolyzer™ for the low-low price of every dime they have. When aimed at a perp over any distance, the Guiltolyzer™'s space-age technology detects subtle cues that unambiguously indicate guilt. Without the need for costly "jury trials," a crime-ridden county can recoup the cost of the unit in just one month!

Did I say cost? I mean "first payment." I think I'm charging too little for this. It's a judicial miracle, really.

But I hear you ask,"Does this really work?" Of course it does, but the details are a Trade Secret!^*.

Now, stop asking that.

The Guiltolyzer™: lightening the burden of proof since, oh, 500 B.C. Yeah, that's it, 500 B.C.

---

Epilogue:

One of the principles underlying the use of "Free Software" (also called "Open Source Software") is that confidence in the integrity of a software system can only be established if the implementation details are fully visible.

This means that you must be able to review the source code. Although critics promote the idea that "what you don't know can't hurt you," the Open Source browser, FireFox, is rapidly eroding the market share of the closed-source Internet Explorer on the basis of FireFox's superior security.

Touch-screen voting machines and now the Breathalyzer case have demonstrated that the risks of closed-source software extend beyond the technical realm. Really, closed-source software is potentially dangerous wherever technology introduces risk, whether it's browser bugs that enable computer viruses, or unverifiable vote counts reported from a "touch-screen" machine.

None of this would come as any surprise to Richard Stallman, who has been promoting this awareness for years. Stallman is pretty eccentric, and sometimes he seems to be lost in his own world.

I never understood, for example, why he hated the term "Open Source" so much, insisting that the term "Free Software" be used exclusively. Wasn't it good that Free Software is gaining acceptance in corporate boardrooms thanks to the alternate "Open Source" label?

The argument is that label "Open Source," describes an economic and technical attribute of some software, but "Free Software" descibed an ethical attribute. "Free Software" is about freedom, not about cost. It's becoming clear that Stallman was not splitting hairs, and that his priorities are right where everyone's should be: Freedom is more important than commerce, in fact it is a prerequisite.

Steve Balmer, co-founder of Microsoft, attacked "Open Source" as anti-American in statements to a Congressional committee a few years ago. He isn't alone in lobbing that smear. I was baffled at this accusation, at the time.

Obviously, Balmer wanted to do anything he could to thwart the growth of Free Software use, and FireFox's exploding popularity is an example of exactly why. But labeling Free Software "un-American" struck me as a pathetic appeal to the outdated sensibilities of the Soviet-era cold war.

Now I get it.

It goes beyond profits and market dominance. It's about control. It the last ditch effort of that jealous preisthood we know as "The Military Industrial Complex" to maintain some control on the information processing and computing activites of average consumers.

The Department of Homeland Security had its first big bust last week. They arrested computer geeks trading pirated digital copies of the new Star Wars film.

Once the growing audience of blog-readers develops the capacity to discern quality information from fucking right-wing drivel — ahem — we may see a major shift toward individual political power. We've already seen a decade of technological attacks on our freedoms, such as the DCMA. These goal of these attacks isn't to dimish our access to technology itself, but to make that technology toothless enough to limit our ability to access and distribute information.

There's one thing you won't hear Bush mention in the "ownership society" and thats the national dialog. The national dialog is not something the crypto-fascists want anyone but themselves to own, because once it becomes the recognized property of the citizens, not the media or the political parties, the scam ends.

We may yet see a day when the propagandists are forced to promote their lies door to door because there won't be a public venue in which brazen dishonesty will endure.

Except churches.

And the Republican National Convention.

Posted by Winston Smith at 03:53 AM | Comments (0)

April 24, 2005

The Democrat's New Ally

Posted by at 11:33 AM | Comments (3)

April 14, 2005

Top 10 "Bush in 30 Years" Ads

Most Americans have the attention span of a flea with a head injury, so if you need to inform them, cartoon format works best.

From over 140,000 entries, Moveon.org has culled the the top 10 ads from the crop. I voted on the Top 50, and these are pretty much in line with my choices, although there were some really good ads that didn't make the final 10.

Go view them. Send your friends the link. Enjoy.

Posted by at 01:10 PM | Comments (0)

March 16, 2005

Wead Apologizes to Big Brother Bush

Plus good, double plus good. Check out how much Doug Wead, the guy who recorded Bush's comments in the late 1990's, recants his actions in this article.

Update

Here is the letter.

Doug Wead, an author and longtime Bush family friend, wrote a letter to the USA Today newspaper about his actions.

He said his decision in the late 1990s to record the future president without his knowledge had been "foolish and wrong".

"I taped a man without his permission and he happened to win the presidency," wrote Mr Wead, whose recently published book The Raising of a President drew on the recordings.

"My decision to release a portion of the tapes has come at a terrible price for my family and has deeply hurt many others.

"I was foolish and wrong to tape-record Mr Bush without his permission. I was wrong to play any part of the tapes for my publisher, regardless of the circumstances."

Mr Wead said he had had begun "the work of reparation", cancelling a tour to promote his book, vowing to donate future royalties from its publication to charity, and handing the recordings over to the White House.

Couple of points here. No one "happens to win the Presidency" and Bush, well he didn't win it the first time anyway. That kind of sucking up just hurts to read.

What did they do or tell Doug Wead to get this utter recanting in a very public forum? Why did USA Today publish it? This reads like Galileo's recanting before he Pope (for those who forgot ... the Pope was wrong about Galileo's model of the Universe, likewise, Doug Wead only captured Bush's own words). This government is looking more Orwellian by the day.

Posted by Steven at 12:14 AM | Comments (1)

March 14, 2005

Canadian Intelligence: U.S. Has Worsened Terror Threat

Do you feel safer today? The Globe and Mail reports that the Canadian Intelligence Agency (CSIS) has determined that The U.S. has worsened the threat of Al Qaeda and other organizations with it's "War on Terror".

The U.S.-led war on terrorism has made al-Qaeda an even more dangerous organization, a senior Canadian intelligence official said Monday.

The blunt assessment of the group's increased “lethal effectiveness” came during a bail hearing for an Egyptian national detained as a threat to Canada's national security.

U.S. action in Afghanistan that followed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks “significantly degraded” al-Qaeda's infrastructure and its ability to provide support for other extremist Islamic groups, said the official, identified only as J.P.

However, that merely prompted terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to put out calls to like-minded groups “to take over the fight,” said J.P., the deputy chief of counter-terrorism with the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service.

“That appeal has been effective,” J.P. told Federal Court Justice Eleanor Dawson, saying that the effect has been a “net increase” in terrorist activities and the results can be seen in “broken bodies and blood in the streets.”

“We now have a more dangerous al-Qaeda.”

Nice Shoot'n, Bush.

Posted by Steven at 04:49 PM | Comments (0)

February 19, 2005

GAO Warns Bush Admin Not to Make Fake News Videos

Hey, that's The Daily Show's job. The Government Accounting Office has warned the Bush Administration to not make anymore fake news videos.

Twice in the last two years, agencies of the federal government have been caught distributing prepackaged television programs that used paid spokesmen acting as newscasters and, in violation of federal law, failed to disclose the administration's role in developing and financing them.

And those were not isolated incidents, David M. Walker, the comptroller general, said in a letter dated Thursday that put all agency heads on notice about the practice.

In fact, it has become increasingly common for federal agencies to adopt the public relations tactic of producing "video news releases" that look indistinguishable from authentic newscasts and, as ready-made and cost-free reports, are sometimes picked up by local news programs. It is illegal for the government to produce or distribute such publicity material domestically without disclosing its own role.

Mr. Walker, who as comptroller general is chief of the Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, said in his letter: "While agencies generally have the right to disseminate information about their policies and activities, agencies may not use appropriated funds to produce or distribute prepackaged news stories intended to be viewed by television audiences that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials."

"It is not enough," he added, "that the contents of an agency's communication may be unobjectionable."

What's missing from this annoucement is how the GAO can punish the White House for continuing to do this. Does anyone know what authority, if any, the GAO has?

Posted by Steven at 12:19 PM | Comments (0)

January 10, 2005

Cape Gattaca, Mass.

In order to solve a three year-old murder, the Truro, MA Police Dept. is asking all male residents of Truro, MA for a sample of their DNA. How long before this is required to get a driver's license, or vote?

In an unusual last-ditch move to find clues to the three-year-old killing of a freelance fashion writer, police investigators are trying to get DNA samples from every man in this Cape Cod hamlet, all 790 or so, or as many as will agree.

Raising concerns among civil libertarians and prompting both resistance and support from men in Truro, the state and local police began collecting the genetic samples last week, visiting delicatessens, the post office and even the town dump to politely ask men to cooperate. Legal experts said the sweeping approach had been used only in limited instances before in the United States - although it is more widely used in Europe - and in at least one of those cases it prompted a lawsuit.

Sgt. David Perry of the Truro Police Department and other law enforcement authorities here say that the program is voluntary but that they will pay close attention to those who refuse to provide DNA.

"We're trying to find that person who has something to hide," Sergeant Perry said.

And in strict violation of the Fifth Amendment, the police have stated (quoted above) that not participating is equivalent to confessing. So much for a right not to incriminate one's self.

PS. In case this all sounds strangely familiar, check out this entry in the Internet Movie Database.

Posted by Steven at 10:33 AM | Comments (0)

December 31, 2004

2004: Is It Over Yet?

I see no need to review this year. 2004 has been a nadir in American achievement, and the only really sad thing is I fear we'll look back on it as a "better than average" year this decade, despite all the fear, hatred, and cruelty spread by our government and its corporate owners during the course of a Presidential Election year (perhaps, our last).

The economy seems to be ticking up (finally) but a crisis overseas could turn the tables in America at a moment's notice. Oil is permanently above $40US/bbl. and don't expect to see it average less than $50US by the end of 2005. This has long term, inflationary consequences on the economy that are definitely bad, unless by some miracle it fosters a renewal in true energy independence. Fat chance.

The "elections" we're fostering in the Middle East have yet to bear any democractic fruit. Fortunately for Shrub, the verdict won't be in for decades, but in the meantime, they'll continue to spread anti-American hatred at the end of a barrel of the gun for the coming year. What will you do when they come to take your son or daugther to war?

Since the GOP are now gutting the ethics rules in Congress, we can pretty much give up any hope of seeing Bush impeached, let along handed over to the Hague. This is a travesty, since the same assholes who are removing these rules put them there to run off the last generation of Democrat leaders. Like the war on Abortion, they really are seeking a wider goal (in the case of the Contract On America, it was the elimination of any political opposition; in the case of abortion, it's really the abolition of birth control), and they'll achieve it before anyone who supports them but would never actually back them realize it.

Here comes 2005, year Five of Bush. Can you guess how far they'll go to the right this year?

Posted by Steven at 08:26 PM | Comments (1)

December 20, 2004

Scalia: Son of Fascist

Is "Fat Tony" a facist? Orcinus has posted information indictating that the man Bush is most likely to name Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is the son of a facist. I realize that the bend of this argument is dangerously close to that used by Joseph McCarthy (D-MN), but even so, it bears repeating: the man is a right wing nut job.

From Alan Dershowitz's book Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000:

He's an interesting guy. His father was a teacher at Brooklyn college when I was there. His father was a proud member of the American-Italian fascist party and got his doctorate at Casa Italiano at Columbia at a time when in order to get your doctorate you had to swear an oath to Mussolini. So he comes from an interesting background and he went to a kind of military school in New York which was a place where many children of fascists were educated.

There's more on Orcinus' site. Read it.

Posted by Steven at 12:59 PM | Comments (0)

December 09, 2004

Cheap Shot of the Week

Check out the President's tighty-whities (loose zips sink ships) in this AP photo:

Do I need to point out that this was a Group of Eight meeting, and the President is doing his impression of the Scarecrow ("if I only had a brain") from The Wizard of Oz?

Posted by Steven at 09:12 AM | Comments (0)

October 07, 2004

The Centre Cannot Hold

Bush is starting to drown in Hurricane Iraq. Howard Fineman is running an opinion stating, simply, that Bush and his goons are losing control of the Iraq story.

This is a turning-point in the election cycle, indeed, even in the Bush Administration. Up until now, they've had the ability to tamp down any dissent in the mainstream press (in some cases, by calling and intimidating the editors of renegade reporters) and keep "the Message" on the headlines, regardless of the cognitive dissonance it presented. Now that is failing them, and the press is emboldened.

George Bush's real political enemy now isn't so much John Kerry as it is the flow of the news. Not long ago, Kerry's decision to attack the president as commander-in-chief (remember all those Swift Boat vets in Boston?) was dismissed by analysts (including me) as naive at best, folly at worst. Well, it may turn out to have been the move that wins this race.

When has the reporting of facts on the ground become "the enemy" of this nation? Under Bush, of course.

Posted by Steven at 08:52 PM | Comments (0)